Sonicularity Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 8 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said: What are the X and Y axes on the chart and what is the source'link? The source is Mans' own research from page 185 of this very thread. Link to comment
Shadders Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Just now, crenca said: Ha...somehow I could still edit! Of course, i couldn't wait the obligatory 30 minutes. Link to comment
crenca Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Shadders said: Of course, i couldn't wait the obligatory 30 minutes. I would not have either Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 9 minutes ago, crenca said: Um, the Y axis is the signal db & the X is signal's frequency - standard audio signal stuff...perhaps you are asking something else? I thought that would be the case but I wanted to confirm I wasn't missing anything. Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 If a track is recorded with a split mic feed into two SoundDevices boxes, one set for 16/44, one set for 24/96 then things could get interesting because you could set up an A/B/C test: Record performance: A=16/44 playback B=24/96 playback C=MQA Encoded 24/96 track playback from Spence Then test: How close does C sound in relation to B? How close does C sound in relation to A? If Siau's 2016 note is correct then C should sound closer to B. If B and C are undifferentiated from an audible standpoint then the MQA encoder is pretty "clean" in terms of no audible loss (which I think is one of the claims MQA is making.) On my files for Spence to encode I could possibly find one of our mic split experiments where we set the second SoundDevices to 16/44 (we typically do two boxes and daisy chain for redundancy reasons.) Might make for an interesting experiment. Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Looks like another writer also believes the mobile market is where the action is. http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile/audiophiles-are-not-the-future-for-mqa.html Link to comment
Popular Post mansr Posted January 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 2 hours ago, Lee Scoggins said: Spence When name-dropping doesn't cut it, try nickname-dropping. MikeyFresh and MrMoM 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post crenca Posted January 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 16 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said: Looks like another writer also believes the mobile market is where the action is. http://audiophilereview.com/audiophile/audiophiles-are-not-the-future-for-mqa.html Well yea, and in other news water is wet. The writer is, once again, only taking an industry centric view. He does not ask why consumers would want MQA over their mp3s, etc. As we have been saying around here for 3 years, MQA begins and ends with DRM. That is why it exists. It was never a sound quality tweak product for audiophiles or the general consumer - that is just the sales hook and gimmick. Specifically with streaming, it does not deliver band width savings because existing tech does this better, and bandwidth savings does not offer enough value to the streaming companies or consumers to warrant a format change. Again (and again and again) MQA leads back to its raison d'etre, DRM. MikeyFresh, MrMoM, semente and 1 other 2 2 Hey MQA, if it is not all $voodoo$, show us the math! Link to comment
Ralf11 Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 3 hours ago, Shadders said: Or, or.... The X is the frequency, and Y is the signal power in dB. Hey - did you just perform a convolution? Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted January 13, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 8 minutes ago, crenca said: Well yea, and in other news water is wet. The writer is, once again, only taking an industry centric view. He does not ask why consumers would want MQA over their mp3s, etc. As we have been saying around here for 3 years, MQA begins and ends with DRM. That is why it exists. It was never a sound quality tweak product for audiophiles or the general consumer - that is just the sales hook and gimmick. Specifically with streaming, it does not deliver band width savings because existing tech does this better, and bandwidth savings does not offer enough value to the streaming companies or consumers to warrant a format change. Again (and again and again) MQA leads back to its raison d'etre, DRM. Is this a good time to point out millennials hate DRM? MrMoM, semente, Tsarnik and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post new_media Posted January 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 Do millennials even remember DRM? mcgillroy and Lee Scoggins 2 Link to comment
Rt66indierock Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, new_media said: Do millennials even remember DRM? Think of all the DRM that has sprouted up in their phones and laptops. Bob Stuart and the audio press may be able to sucker boomers, gen x is too cynical they can sense a con a mile away. Millennials who can afford audio know better than to even listen to boomers. MrMoM 1 Link to comment
Popular Post asdf1000 Posted January 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 minute ago, Rt66indierock said: gen x is too cynical they can sense a con a mile away. Millennials who can afford audio know better than to even listen to boomers. 99% don’t care about ANY of this stuff - don’t care enough to even be cynical. Everyone here is part of the 1% Fokus, Don Hills and Lee Scoggins 2 1 Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rt66indierock said: Think of all the DRM that has sprouted up in their phones and laptops. Bob Stuart and the audio press may be able to sucker boomers, gen x is too cynical they can sense a con a mile away. Millennials who can afford audio know better than to even listen to boomers. My guess is that if MQA is in their hardware and streaming services, they may not care about any DRM if they get the music on their phones with a big library for a reasonable price. Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted January 13, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 22 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said: My guess is that if MQA is in their hardware and streaming services, they may not care about any DRM if they get the music on their phones with a big library for a reasonable price. They already get a big library on their phones and complain about the price. crenca, mcgillroy, mansr and 3 others 2 2 2 Link to comment
Popular Post vmartell22 Posted January 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Lee Scoggins said: My guess is that if MQA is in their hardware and streaming services, they may not care about any DRM if they get the music on their phones with a big library for a reasonable price. Yes, but, isn't that true DRM or not? It would be better for the general public if the prevalent platform would not be DRM infected. That said, my fear is not streaming - I don't do streaming other than in the car, where I am yelling at the kids, swearing at other drivers and barely controlling the road rage... so do not care about SQ, etc... just want to tame the beast... SQ is the last of my concerns and as log as the file plays do not care how. My guess is that this is where most people live. BUT The stated intent is MQA everywhere. Now I feel compelled to fight it with all my heart - In fact I do believe that discussing the the technical minutia is pointless - this is an idea that is rotten in principle. A transparent attempt to take away consumer rights. Whether it sounds good, OK or bad is immaterial . The intent is rotten at the core. No slight intended against lee - I enjoy his site even if I disagree with the non-stop MQA coverage. I wish there wasn't such thing as this blatant anti-consumer effort. But, that said, great site, lee. v MrMoM and mcgillroy 1 1 Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, vmartell22 said: Yes, but, isn't that true DRM or not? It would be better for the general public if the prevalent platform would not be DRM infected. That said, my fear is not streaming - I don't do streaming other than in the car, where I am yelling at the kids, swearing at other drivers and barely controlling the road rage... so do not care about SQ, etc... just want to tame the beast... SQ is the last of my concerns and as log as the file plays do not care how. My guess is that this is where most people live. BUT The stated intent is MQA everywhere. Now I feel compelled to fight it will all my heart - In fact I do believe that discussing the the technical minutia is pointless - this is an idea that is rotten in principle. A transparent attempt to take away consumer rights. Whether it sounds good, OK or bad is immaterial . The intent is rotten at the core. No slight intended against lee - I enjoy his site even if I disagree with the non-stop MQA coverage. I wish there wasn't such thing as this blatant anti-consumer effort. But, that said, great site, lee. v Still researching but my current understanding is that DRM isn’t being used on MQA files presently so I am not sure how any consumer freedoms are being harmed. And still no one has clearly explained a revenue model from DRM, which is one reason I suspect its not a factor in the label support. Glad you like the site. Link to comment
RunHomeSlow Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Is this thread of 263 pages sponsored by MQA, arf ? If You Got Ears, You Gotta Listen – Captain Beefheart MacMini 2018, 4xi3 3.6GHz, SSD, 20Gb, macOS Sonoma > Audirvana Origin > Wyred DAC2 DSD Special Edition > Proceed AMP2 > Focal Cobalt 826 Signature Series > Audirvana Remote > iPhone 13 Link to comment
Popular Post Rt66indierock Posted January 13, 2018 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, RunHomeSlow said: Is this thread of 263 pages sponsored by MQA, arf ? We get some MQA supporters like Lee from time to time. He says a lot of things that are helpful to those of us who oppose MQA. Its fun to watch him dance around the DRM issue when you can't have a revenue stream to MQA Ltd without DRM. We'll chase him away eventually. He's no different than Witchdoctor or Peter Veth. MikeyFresh, crenca, semente and 1 other 1 2 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Don Hills Posted January 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 53 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said: Still researching but my current understanding is that DRM isn’t being used on MQA files presently so I am not sure how any consumer freedoms are being harmed. And still no one has clearly explained a revenue model from DRM, which is one reason I suspect its not a factor in the label support. ... The DRM mechanism is present in all MQA files. Strong encryption is used to encode the "hi res" part of the data (the 24-48 KHz part stored in the lowest 8 or so bits of each sample.) Currently the upper bits ( 0-24 KHz, 15-17 bits) are unencrypted, but the format allows for encrypting most of the upper bits as well. As I've explained to you before, I believe it'll play out the same as HDCP has done for the HDMI standard. No enforcement of rights in the initial stages until the format becomes ubiquitous, then increasing enforcement. As for revenue stream, it's not so much about revenue. It's about control. The labels see their loss of revenue as being caused by a loss of control. They want the control back. MrMoM and opus101 1 1 "People hear what they see." - Doris Day The forum would be a much better place if everyone were less convinced of how right they were. Link to comment
Popular Post opus101 Posted January 13, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2018 11 hours ago, Fokus said: Given a 192kHz recording. It will have ringing at 96kHz, because it has been produced with an industry-standard half-band AA filter in the ADC. Its important to recognize that this ringing isn't a given. There's the theoretical possibility of ringing because of the steepness of the AAF, but to get ringing in practice you need to have frequency content at the ringing frequency in the material to kick it off. Bells need to be struck in order to ring and ring-y filters need to be struck with the right frequency. The upshot is - if there's no 96kHz content in the recording there will be no ringing evident. semente, crenca, Shadders and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Don Hills said: The DRM mechanism is present in all MQA files. Strong encryption is used to encode the "hi res" part of the data (the 24-48 KHz part stored in the lowest 8 or so bits of each sample.) Currently the upper bits ( 0-24 KHz, 15-17 bits) are unencrypted, but the format allows for encrypting most of the upper bits as well. As I've explained to you before, I believe it'll play out the same as HDCP has done for the HDMI standard. No enforcement of rights in the initial stages until the format becomes ubiquitous, then increasing enforcement. As for revenue stream, it's not so much about revenue. It's about control. The labels see their loss of revenue as being caused by a loss of control. They want the control back. Don, I understand that but isn’t it unfair to criticize MQA for encryption when that is a key part of the folding? That is a bit like saying we don’t like DSD because it is sigma-delta modulation. And your comment about control doesn’t work because it doesn’t explain where revenue growth happens. Link to comment
Lee Scoggins Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 52 minutes ago, opus101 said: Its important to recognize that this ringing isn't a given. There's the theoretical possibility of ringing because of the steepness of the AAF, but to get ringing in practice you need to have frequency content at the ringing frequency in the material to kick it off. Bells need to be struck in order to ring and ring-y filters need to be struck with the right frequency. The upshot is - if there's no 96kHz content in the recording there will be no ringing evident. I don’t believe this is how it works. Link to comment
opus101 Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Lee Scoggins said: I don’t believe this is how it works. Who do you get your beliefs from? semente 1 Link to comment
opus101 Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Lee Scoggins said: That is a bit like saying we don’t like DSD because it is pulse width modulation. Are you aware that it isn't PWM? semente 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now